Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 280 posts

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#251

Post by Ichthypresbyter »

detritus wrote: post #70
LatteLazy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but it would be really nice if we could classify lockdowns better. The original lockdown furloughed a LOT of workers, closed schools and closed virtually all shops. Today's "super tier 4+ lockdown" doesn't seem to apply to shops at all (my local shops were all open this morning, is wrapping paper really an "essential"?). Workers are mostly going in. Schools that have remained open unless they alread…

On my walk to work this morning, I detoured down a local main street, curious to see what shops were considering themselves 'essential' and remaining open. Apparently this time around, travel agents and jewellery sellers have added themselves to the list, with a few barbers clearly operating illicitly behind half-drawn shutters. I was bemused by the very chi-chi local middle class deli near my home insisting they'd b…

> I mean, sure they sell food, but really - I'm unsure how vital to survival artisanal cheese and pasta is!

I suppose we could close all food shops other than Asda, and restrict Asda to selling only their most basic range (and no sweets, chocolate, fizzy drinks, etc- after all, you can survive without those). On the other hand, that would mean that Asda would be more crowded as people who normally shop in your "chi-chi local middle class deli" now have to go there.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#252

Post by hammock »

porknubbins wrote: post #219
bmitc wrote: post #218

I find it completely disappointing and disheartening that the west has done almost nothing to curb the virus, thus increasing the chance of mutation and continued spread. It's just hard to see the pointing of fingers at China that's happened, especially in hindsight when it's unclear if it even began in China (which doesn't really matter anyway if it was a naturally occurring zoonotic crossover event) and not somewhe…

Some of the finger pointing at China may be unfair but clearly they knew a lot about the virus while letting their citizens travel outside. Not that the West would’ve handled it any better necessarily but when you seed the world with virus there is going to be some blowback.

Not only this, they restricted travel from Wuhan region to other parts of China, while at the same time not restricting travel abroad.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#253

Post by 4gotunameagain »

cwhiz wrote: post #250
bmitc wrote: post #218

I find it completely disappointing and disheartening that the west has done almost nothing to curb the virus, thus increasing the chance of mutation and continued spread. It's just hard to see the pointing of fingers at China that's happened, especially in hindsight when it's unclear if it even began in China (which doesn't really matter anyway if it was a naturally occurring zoonotic crossover event) and not somewhe…

The US is a free country. China is an authoritarian dictatorship. The most alarming thing to me is the public appetite for authoritarian policies.

I mean, you're not wrong about China and authoritarianism, but calling US free at this point I think is a mild exaggeration. Corporatocracy might be more apt

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#255

Post by tibbydudeza »

graeme wrote: post #160
gorgoiler wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I right in saying that the goal of any lockdown is not to completely stop the spread of the virus, but to instead merely keep hospitals from filling up? The health of the population, in general, is not the primary concern. We just need to stop the hospitals from collapsing. We live with all manner of sickness and disease every day of the year without trying to eradicate them. Covid is only different from heart dis…

Lockdown had a variety of goals but the current situation can generally be classed as a policy failure. Hospital collapse is the worst case scenario but isn’t the only goal. Other important goals include: * keeping schools open (mostly a success) * avoiding economic disruption (mixed, tending towards failure) * avoiding unnecessary deaths and long run health issues (failure) * Avoiding a second lockdown and the relat…

It is way easier to leave the UK than it is to leave Australia/NZ - there are only the airways and no roads or ferries.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#256

Post by jnxx »

timr wrote: post #169
occamrazor wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct link to the thread where he explains why the evidence, although not conclusive, strongly supports a higher infectivity of the new variant: https://mobile.twitter.com/jcbarret/status/13407169016101724...

This is a perfect example of mixing science and opinion, and we should be scolding "scientists" who do this without clarifying which is which, not lionizing them. The only definitively factual statement he makes is in the first tweet: "One of the key questions about the new variant (B.1.1.7) is whether there is conclusive evidence that it is more transmissible. I don't think we are absolutely certain yet" Everything…

> Without well-controlled cell-culture or animal studies that show that this strain is out-competing other strains in vivo, we don't have solid evidence either way.

Just a question:

If two weeks from now, it becomes evident that more than 90 % of all infections in the UK are with the new variant, would you change your opinion?

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#257

Post by jnxx »

mrtnmcc wrote: post #211
timr wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perfect example of mixing science and opinion, and we should be scolding "scientists" who do this without clarifying which is which, not lionizing them. The only definitively factual statement he makes is in the first tweet: "One of the key questions about the new variant (B.1.1.7) is whether there is conclusive evidence that it is more transmissible. I don't think we are absolutely certain yet" Everything…

You could spend ten minutes debating whether the growing bright light and rising Doppler sound exactly matches the expected profile of an oncoming train.. or you could just get off the tracks. Here absolute fact is only clear when the effect is so strong it's too late.

> Here absolute fact is only clear when the effect is so strong it's too late.

This! I strongly agree that one should not mix up scientific hard knowledge with hypotheses, statements of likelihood, educated guesses and so on.

However, I do not agree at all with the demand that you always need to be 100% sure to act decisively on something important. That is just not how life works!

It does not work like that in the small. If you are a parent and you smell smoke, and your children are playing upstairs, there is no requirement that you know with certainty there is a fire before you get your kids out of the house. You get them out.

If you are a bus driver packed full with people chopping a long a foggy motorway in the morning, and three hundred meters ahead appears something which looks like an overthrown heavy truck, you do not need to be 100& certain to hit the brakes. You brake.

If you are captain of a frigate in heavy weather and with serious navigation difficulties, and ahead appears something which looks damn likely like a rock or a VLCC, you do not need absolute certainty to change course. You just change.

And in fact we demand the same from industrial and military leaders all the time. It is even one defining element of leadership to act both wisely and decidedly under uncertain conditions.

And now, we go and demand that the evidence we get from scientists has 100% certainty before we act. That's wrong. It is not intelligent behaviour because a lot of things will have irreversible consequences before we have certainty about the situation.

(And interestingly, we have seen exactly the same pattern on the topic of climate change.)

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#258

Post by bmitc »

mns wrote: post #239
bmitc wrote: post #218

I find it completely disappointing and disheartening that the west has done almost nothing to curb the virus, thus increasing the chance of mutation and continued spread. It's just hard to see the pointing of fingers at China that's happened, especially in hindsight when it's unclear if it even began in China (which doesn't really matter anyway if it was a naturally occurring zoonotic crossover event) and not somewhe…

I also find it disappointing that people still think that blindly applying measures that may work in one case, will work in any other case. It's like countries don't have different cultures, different climate, geography, demography, political systems and so on. And people still think that taking one set of rules that work in one context we can just apply them anywhere and have the same result. I heard this quote on a…

> I also find it disappointing that people still think that blindly applying measures that may work in one case, will work in any other case. ... And people still think that taking one set of rules that work in one context we can just apply them anywhere and have the same result.

Where was that suggested?

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#259

Post by jnxx »

AntiImperialis2 wrote: post #147
guscost wrote: post #74

Based on the precedent of all other endemic human coronaviruses, there is reason to guess that the winning mutations will be less dangerous. This is also consistent with theory: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873896/ > By far, the most widely studied trade-off involves transmission and virulence (Anderson and May, 1982; Frank, 1996; Alizon et al. 2009).

The strains being transmitted the most are likely to keep the host the most healthy for the longest time. However, this is only true in the LONG RUN, when different variants have played out for a while. In the short term, there could be a highly transimissible strain with a much higher mortality. It will eventually come to a point when the most common strains in a population are milder strains... but one of the reaso…

Exactly. There exists a really good example for that, the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918.

Re: New coronavirus variant: What do we know?

#260

Post by jnxx »

raphaelj wrote: post #11
spuz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes variants occur all the time but they don't tend to become dominant. This variant went from 30% of all infections in November to 60% three weeks later. In order for a given variant to supplant all the others and become dominant it must have some characteristics that make it more transmissible. That is why they are particularly worried about this variant.

Could it still be that this variant is as infectious as others, but just happens to be the dominant one in the regions where the virus circulates the most, for reasons that have nothing to do with the genetics of the virus? London and the South East are some of the densest populated areas in the UK, and one could expect exponential growth of infections there while other less populated areas could manage to keep their…

> Could it still be that this variant is as infectious as others, but just happens to be the dominant one in the regions where the virus circulates the most, for reasons that have nothing to do with the genetics of the virus?

That can happen when general incidence is very low, in a small region, or for a short time. But this is not any more the case here, and having this happening by chance is very unlikely.

Post reply on HN